OBJECTIONS TO DARWIN'S THEORY 107 



destroyed as a wide-reaching and significant process. 

 I do not think, however, that any such evidence has been 

 forthcoming. I shall be interested in the discussion 

 which follows this paper to hear whether those who 

 believe in the Lamarckian Theory have such evidence to 

 produce, whether they can prove that any one great class 

 of characters has been useless in the past and remains 

 useless in the present. 



Another kind of objection has been urged long ago, 

 and is still urged to-day. Why do we not find in the 

 palaeontological series the records of individual failures ? 

 Now, as regards the individuals of a species we cannot 

 expect to find any such evidence. What is failure ? 

 Failure means, according to Natural Selection, the failure 

 to produce offspring. The individual which comes into 

 the world and dies without offspring has failed. The 

 individual which is represented in the generations of the 

 future has succeeded. Natural Selection has set its stamp 

 upon that individual. But it is impossible to decide from 

 the fossil record whether any particular individual of 

 sufficient maturity had failed or succeeded. We have 

 not got the facts before us by which we can form any 

 conclusions. ^~=^ 



Furthermore, we know the struggl e^ for e xistence is 

 excessively complicated. THe^skeleton alone, though 

 oTthe highest value" in association with the rest of the 



• • • 1 1 



organism, has been the sole turning-point in the struggle 

 in a comparatively small number of cases. When it has 

 been the turning-point in association with other parts, these 

 latter are absent. We have only a very small part of the 

 problem before us, and never can expect any more. 



But while we cannot expect to find evidence of the 

 survival of the fittest among the individuals of a species, 

 we may expect to find it in the supplanting of classes by 

 classes, of groups of species by groups of species. Some 

 of the facts which have been brought forward as evidence 

 in this direction do, to my mind, very strongly support 

 the theory of Natural Selection by palaeontological 

 ■ evidenc e. Consider especially the case of the large 

 mammals preceding those which gave rise to the quad- 



